In re Jay S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Jay S.

37 A.D.2d 815, 324 N.Y.S.2d 812, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3337

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 7, 1971

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 37 A.D.2d 815 (In re Jay S.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Jay S., 37 A.D.2d 815, 324 N.Y.S.2d 812, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3337 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Family Court of the State of New York, Bronx County, entered February 10, 1971, which found after a fact-finding hearing that appellant had committed acts which if done by an adult would constitute [816]*816the crime of grand larceny, second degree, is unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs and without disbursements, and the matter is remanded for a hearing ab initio. Upon the remand, the court should initially make a determination as to appellant’s competency to stand trial. We are of the belief that the court improperly denied the law guardian’s request made in court on February 10,1971 for the three-day adjournment as provided for in section 737 of the Family Court Act. In any event, since there was a substantial question raised as to appellant’s competency to stand trial, it was improper to proceed to a fact-finding determination on the underlying petition prior to a determination as to appellant’s competency. Concur — Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Steuer, Tilzer and Macken, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order of the Family Court of the State of New York, Bronx County, entered February 10, 1971, which found after a fact-finding hearing that appellant had committed acts which if done by an adult would constitute [816]*816the crime of grand larceny, second degree, is unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs and without disbursements, and the matter is remanded for a hearing ab initio. Upon the remand, the court should initially make a determination as to appellant’s competency to stand trial. We are of the belief that the court improperly denied the law guardian’s request made in court on February 10,1971 for the three-day adjournment as provided for in section 737 of the Family Court Act. In any event, since there was a substantial question raised as to appellant’s competency to stand trial, it was improper to proceed to a fact-finding determination on the underlying petition prior to a determination as to appellant’s competency. Concur — Stevens, P. J., Markewich, Steuer, Tilzer and Macken, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.2d 815, 324 N.Y.S.2d 812, 1971 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-jay-s-nyappdiv-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack